USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

clark · 2003-04-21 11:17:45

And through this all Tim, what have you proved?

Canada has a smaller military than the US? Staggering oberservation.

Trade with the US? Canada has a trade surplus, okay, there is half the story. What about the negative impacts of NAFATA on Canada's economy? Are we to assume these don't exsist and Canada somehow got all these nice smelling roses?

Canada takes a softer role in foreign diplomacy? Great, so the US is a great gun slinger, and becuase Canada dares to voice a contray position, you try to belittle her value.

You haven't proved anything Tim.

RobertDyck · 2003-04-21 11:31:05

In just a handful of posts, many of your core beliefs have been shattered. Trade with the US (Canada has a huge trade surplus), military (canada's is smaller than even iceland), US military expenditures (smaller, in terms of GDP than 1/2 the world's countries), and now N Korea's benevolent dictator has been revealed as the monster he is.

My beliefs aren't shattered, and I don't think we are in such agreement as you think. I believe the disparity in job creation has more to do with economic policy than value of the dollar. Imposing trade sanctions on Canada cannot be justified for the issues I raised. North Korea has not threatened a first strike on anyone that I have heard of, although they do threaten to defend themselves. I think self defence can be justified. As long as that is all they are saying, the situation can be alleviated by lowering the rhetoric. If they want to build a nuclear reactor, then let them. If they want to build a nuclear bomb, then let them. Just tell them that if they use any nuclear bomb on any country in the world then the U.S. will turn all North Korean cities into a radioactive sea of glass. That said they can never use their nuclear weapon; it becomes a colossal waste of money.

tim_perdue · 2003-04-21 11:55:26

you try to belittle her value.

Clark, I'm disappointed as you're quite sensible generally. Read my first post, I have not tried to belittle anyone's value.

As for "what has been proved" - Canada has one hell of a sweet deal and yet you hear endless complaints and invectives. I think this has been a pretty common theme through everything I've said. I'm surprised you missed it?

Palomar · 2003-04-21 11:56:50

*I'll try to make this my last post in this thread.

Robert and I exchanged brief correspondence (I initiated it) a while back regarding some of Canada's current views of the U.S.A.; he's posted here much of what he told me in private.

I love the U.S.A...and to me, part of that love includes admitting when one is wrong. I believe a "we can do no wrong, we never make a mistake, we never owe anybody an apology" attitude is a dangerous attitude.

It's folly to think no other nation on Earth could have a legitimate complaint, or complaints, about the U.S.A. If we've been in the wrong regarding something, it's a matter of honor, ethics and integrity to at least admit it [not to mention take active steps to repair the situation]. It sure seems to me the U.S.A. has treated Canada in a less than honorable fashion on more than one occasion, if what Robert relates is true (and he's given me no reason to distrust what he says, based on all these months I've been following his posts; he's always well-spoken, consistent and forthright regardless of subject matter).

As regards the situation with the Koreas: I've not followed that circumstance closely enough to warrant extensive opinion-airing. However, I do have a problem with South Korea, on the one hand, burning the U.S. flag and masses of their people in the street ranting and raving against the U.S.A....and the second North Korea threatens to turn the South into a "sea of flame" and nuke them into oblivion, all of a sudden it gets REALLY QUIET; the flag burning and spittle-flecked ranting stops and now they want our help again.

I don't know what may be the cause(s) of the South's hatred toward the U.S.A. [I suspect at least some of it is due to North Korean gov't sympathizers infiltrating the South, feeding them propaganda and stirring up hatred], but there are certainly better ways of voicing their disgruntled anger toward the U.S. It seems hypocritical on their part to want to tear our eyeballs out with their fingernails one day, and then the next day, when they get another threat, they're looking to us to help them.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-04-21 12:16:13

If they want to build a nuclear bomb, then let them. Just tell them that if they use any nuclear bomb on any country in the world then the U.S. will turn all North Korean cities into a radioactive sea of glass. That said they can never use their nuclear weapon; it becomes a colossal waste of money.

Here is a point of contention:

If North Korea does develop the bomb, which we can all generally agree, would be sucicide for them to use, what would they *do* with it? Most of the ugly, and very real scenerio, is that N. Korea will sell the technology, and/or the bomb to other nations, which isn't in our best interest, or sell it to non-state actors to use, definitely not in our best interest.

And Tim, I think we all get where you are coming from, but you are making a blind argument with little room for a middle ground to be established.

Your argument would have us suppose that Canada, and any like her, should just shut up and follow lock step with the US policy becuase we are the ones that provide the security for everyone. It is a unilateralist and pig-headed position. It automatically presupposes our own position as being inherently correct becuase we have the ability to do certain things.

Canada is a part of NATO, and NORAD, and countless other politcal, scientific, educational, cultural, economic, etc. endeavours with the US. So you singling out their contributions to NATO is only part of the story- you neglect the rest. Also, i think the US derives the most out of these relationships, and our military, more than Canada does.

They don't contribute to their military becuase they don't have to. There's a big surprise. They don't need to. The US certainly dosen't want anyone else to spend more money on their militray, that why one of the US stated goals is to have such a military dominance that no one would even CONSIDER trying to match us. That's our policy Tim. Don't you think a diplomatic parnter, like Canada, would kind of do what makes us happy? Yet now you fault them for it.

I'm just spoutin off becuase this is an incredibly stupid argument, and America is growing fewer and fewer friends by the day. Canada is not the enemy.

They don't think our military adventures are justified- or at least some of their politicans say as much. Well guess what, a majority of the world feels the same way.

Come on, am I the only one? You're arguing about Canada. Canada!

You might as well blast on Berkley next.

tim_perdue · 2003-04-21 12:26:20

And Tim, I think we all get where you are coming from, but you are making a blind argument with little room for a middle ground to be established.
Your argument would have us suppose that Canada, and any like her, should just shut up and follow lock step with the US policy becuase we are the ones that provide the security for everyone.

Please don't put such words in my mouth. In fact I think it's perfectly fine that they didn't participate in the Iraq war, which I believe was highly questionable from the get-go.

What I do have a problem with, and have stated it in probably 5+ posts now, is that Canadians, including leading politicians in the ruling party, are defaming the US, burning the flag, etc, all the while enjoying tremendous benefits from the relationship. On this side of the border, few people could care less about canada and therefore no one is burning the maple leaf flag, let alone calling the leaders "morons and bastards".

I'm sure if you look back through my posts, this is all I've said, and I have not endorsed the questionable Iraq war, nor have I personally impugned any canadian, nor have I suggested Canada should increase military expenditures.

If you can find any quotes from me to the contrary, please post them and I'll eat my words.

clark · 2003-04-21 12:47:00

What I do have a problem with, and have stated it in probably 5+ posts now, is that Canadians, including leading politicians in the ruling party, are defaming the US, burning the flag, etc, all the while enjoying tremendous benefits from the relationship.

Yes, Canada enjoys benefits from a relationship with the US. Now, please establsih how their receiving of benefits requires that they agree with everything we do.

Would you have us suppose that if someone receives a benefit from Uncle Sam, they also should waive any right to disagree with the means Uncle Sam uses to ensure those benefits?

That's what your argument ends up saying. Everything you point out only serves to establish this final relationship.

So Canada burns Old Glory. So what? So they disagree with our militay actions. So what? I applaude them, and if they want, i will sell them as many flags as they are willing to burn- sounds like I could make some money! I wouldn't burn our flag. I don't think they should burn our flag, but am I going to fault them for it? No.

They're entitled to their opinion, even if we're the only thing standing between them and hell. To argue otherwise, or to suggest that they should be grateful for benevolance is nothing more than arrogance and shortsightedness.

Canada receives benefits from a relationship with the US just as the US receives benefits from a relationship with Canada.

tim_perdue · 2003-04-21 13:04:47

Yes, Canada enjoys benefits from a relationship with the US. Now, please establsih how their receiving of benefits requires that they agree with everything we do.
Would you have us suppose that if someone receives a benefit from Uncle Sam, they also should waive any right to disagree with the means Uncle Sam uses to ensure those benefits?

I challenged you to come up with any quotes of mine to support these absolutist statements that you are creating, and instead you created more absolutist statements.

It should have been clear in my first post (and perhaps many since then....) that most of these people are poorly informed and irrational, and it's pointless to try to win any sort of "popularity contest" (sound familiar? It was in my first post), as it could never be won until all people have perfect information and perfect logic. You'll notice I never said all canadians are required to agree with anything. Only you have created that.

I'd say this is beaten to death. The Canada thing was a side-track from the get-go.

RobertDyck · 2003-04-21 13:12:13

Do you not consider a statement like "hiding behind the skirts of the neighbouring superpower" to be a suggestion that Canada should increase military expenditures?

Clark is right about America not wanting Canada to increase its military. On one hand America is demanding Canada spend more, on the other hand complained the last time Canada did. Way back in the late 1950s/early 1960s Canada developed the best fighter aircraft in the world. At a time that no fighter aircraft could fly at mach 2, the Avro Arrow could fly at mach 2.7. It had self-contained computer processing for onboard radar at a time when all other fighters had to radio raw data to an airbase, process the data on a ground computer, and radio the results back up to the fighter. This meant fighters could not use their radar outside radio range of an airbase. But the Arrow was intended to fly in Canada's north where there was nothing for thousands of miles. The primary mission was to intercept Russian bomber aircraft headed for America; it was to be a major contribution to NORAD. Canada intended to sell these aircraft to all NATO countries. Avro had even landed a contract from France for the engine, which was also the best fighter jet engine in the world. Handling characteristics were so good that it could even make some turns tighter than an F15; the F15 could make most turns tighter but with some the Arrow was superior. The first full performance prototype was completed in 1961; the F15 was operational in the 1970s. In fact, only the F22 can out perform the Arrow in EVERY way, which is just entering service now. But the U.S. government of the day pressured Canada into scrapping the Arrow program. There was also domestic politics involved, but many Canadians are resentful than the U.S. would pressure Canada to scrap the one military thing that it had done the best. The excuse from the U.S. was that missiles make fighters obsolete, but American aircraft manufacturers hired the out-of-work engineers from Avro and they were involved in the century series of fighters (F101, F102, F103, F104). Other former Avro engineers worked on the space shuttle, others worked on the Concord.

If Canada were to significantly increase military spending now, it would want one spectacular niche product that would be best in the world, surpassing even the United States. Does the U.S. want Canada to produce a major military system that is better than anything from the U.S.? I doubt it. Besides, peace has become part of the Canadian culture.

This doesn't even touch on the Voodoo fighters. They were the replacement for the Arrow to take-out Russian Bear bombers. In the case of a major attack from Russia on America, the Voodoo fighter would fly to the U.S. Airforce base in Bangor, Main, get armed with air-to-air nuclear missiles, and attack the Russian bombers. American fighters would cover the east coast provinces vacated by Canadian fighters. The nuclear missiles would have to be fired so close that the fighter could not get out of the blast zone; it was a suicide mission. This entire squadron of fighter pilots knew their primary mission was a suicide mission to protect America. I would expect some gratitude. The Voodoo fighters have been replaced with CF18 fighters and air-to-air missiles with conventional warheads, but for decades the Voodoo squadron stood ready to sacrifice their lives for our Ally.

clark · 2003-04-21 13:16:46

I challenged you to come up with any quotes of mine to support these absolutist statements that you are creating, and instead you created more absolutist statements.

Okay, you win. Now what?

You'll notice I never said all canadians are required to agree with anything.

Then why make such a point to demonstrate that Canada derives benefits from the US military? You say it without directly stating it. Or should we take all of your statements as independant of one another with no overall meaning?

When we go through your posts, and look at them as a whole, this is the message that ends up being taken away. Perhaps the failure is on my part, and I am misunderstanding what your point is, but it seems to me, and others, that you don't entirely respect the actions or words of a few in Canada.

It should have been clear in my first post (and perhaps many since then....) that most of these people are poorly informed and irrational, ...

Well, let us be precise here, you feel that most of these people are poorly informed- by a criteria that you deem acceptable. I fail to see how you've managed to establish that most people are poorly informed. I doubt if you could.

So now we are arguing about an opinion related to the level of knoledge of *most* people regarding world affairs- or in this case, just in Canada. Whatever.

Either way, Ill just go back to making more absoluitst statements...

tim_perdue · 2003-04-21 13:37:20

Then why make such a point to demonstrate that Canada derives benefits from the US military? You say it without directly stating it. Or should we take all of your statements as independant of one another with no overall meaning?
When we go through your posts, and look at them as a whole, this is the message that ends up being taken away. Perhaps the failure is on my part, and I am misunderstanding what your point is, but it seems to me, and others, that you don't entirely respect the actions or words of a few in Canada.
Well, let us be precise here, you feel that most of these people are poorly informed- by a criteria that you deem acceptable. I fail to see how you've managed to establish that most people are poorly informed. I doubt if you could.

Fair enough. I think the only piece of the puzzle you are missing can be filled in with simple deductive reasoning.

By the very act of dancing in the streets and burning flags and calling morons and bastards, et al... they are demonstrating their poor information and/or lack of rationality. Proof of what you said was unprovable.

For instance, if I'm nationality XYZ and I realize that my entire economy is based on trade with the country ZYX, and I am informed that my country has a huge trade surplus, why would I rant and rave about little trade disputes that are normal for any two nations?

In other words, there is nothing going on between the US and Canada to justify such words and actions, making them acts of emotion, not rational thought based on full information.

But humans are NOT rational creatures, and are NOT fully informed, and therefore it is rather pointless to proceed with some attempt to win a "popularity contest". Instead, we should do what we believe is right and what is right for us, ie exactly what I posted in the very beginning.

tim_perdue · 2003-04-21 13:51:34

Do you not consider a statement like "hiding behind the skirts of the neighbouring superpower" to be a suggestion that Canada should increase military expenditures?

No, but it was flamebait.

Way back in the late 1950s/early 1060s Canada developed the best fighter aircraft in the world. At a time that no fighter aircraft could fly at mach 2, the Avro Arrow could fly at mach 2.7.

Thank you. I had not heard of this and it is good info, although I doubt canada was developing mach 2 fighters all the way back in 1060 !!

As for the best fighter in the world, I'll take your word on that and leave it alone.

But the U.S. government of the day pressured Canada into scrapping the Arrow program. There was also domestic politics involved, but many Canadians are resentful than the U.S. would pressure Canada to scrap the one military thing that it had done the best.

I suspect domestic politics were more important than you are letting on. It doesn't make any sense that the US would have success in scrapping such a canadian program unless there was some benefit to the canucks.

The nuclear missiles would have to be fired so close that the fighter could not get out of the blast zone; it was a suicide mission. This entire squadron of fighter pilots knew their primary mission was a suicide mission to protect America. I would expect some gratitude.

Are you saying that this was not also defending Canada at the same time? Somehow it was only defending the US and not Canada? I find that hard to believe. With the elimination of the US, even if Canada received no nukes on her soil, she would be ruined from fallout and collapsed economy (not to mention all the refugees from down south).

Somehow I suspect that defense of north america is in BOTH our interests.

soph · 2003-04-21 14:07:52

Robert, your comment about American violence leading to its birth is ridiculous. America was far more important to England than America, and it was more unfairly treated as well. Britain wanted to put down the American "threat," Canada, on the other hand, posed no threat, and was released when the British were tired of the Western Hemisphere.

Our birth came through English violence, which we responded to in kind.

RobertDyck · 2003-04-21 14:09:56

Thank you. I had not heard of this and it is good info, although I doubt canada was developing mach 2 fighters all the way back in 1060 !!
As for the best fighter in the world, I'll take your word on that and leave it alone.

The fully functional prototype of the Arrow did fly at mach 2 once in 1961. Rumour has it that when the team to scrap it was on its way, the test pilot took it up once and flew at full performance: mach 2.7. That cannot be confirmed because it was a military project and many documents regarding the program were destroyed. However, mach 2 performance was confirmed. Avro had plans for an air-to-air missile with a conventional warhead capable of taking out a Bear bomber; its primary target. However, the missile project never got beyond concept.

I suspect domestic politics were more important than you are letting on.

That is still hotly debated. It all happened before I was born so I can only go by what I am told. It is a fact, however, that agents from Washington insisted the factory get converted to "toasters". That was the birth of the Canada/US Autopact. That is one reason Canada fought the W.T.O. so strongly when they insisted the Autopact get scrapped in favour of open trade. The Autopact was supposed to be compensation for decommissioning the Arrow project.

Somehow I suspect that defense of north america is in BOTH our interests.

That is what NORAD is all about. I still expect gratitude for pilots willing to fly a suicide mission to stop an attack on a U.S. city.

tim_perdue · 2003-04-21 14:16:21

The fully functional prototype of the Arrow did fly at mach 2 once in 1961.

I was making fun of a little typo you made. I don't think you caught it even in the followup. 1060 vs 1960.

That is what NORAD is all about.

Right, but you said we should be "grateful" about this alleged suicide mission, defending the US, etc. At the same time we are talking about Canada's unilateral disarmament and the US defending both countries to the benefit of both.

ie the root of this entire thread.

clark · 2003-04-21 14:21:01

Thank you. I had not heard of this and it is good info, although I doubt canada was developing mach 2 fighters all the way back in 1060 !!
As for the best fighter in the world, I'll take your word on that and leave it alone.

The Arrow was technically better. The reasons it was scrapped was political (imagine that). When we start talking about military procurement, systems development, etc. there are a number or reasons why the US would want a home grown plane versus a foreign produced one. I suggest that we are all better off leaving this alone. The short and skinny though is Canada did have a better plane.

By the very act of dancing in the streets and burning flags and calling morons and bastards, et al... they are demonstrating their poor information and/or lack of rationality. Proof of what you said was unprovable.

One, please reread my statement- *most* is included. A bunch of yahoo's in the street is no way to assess the majority of individuals understanding of a situation. Two, you cite rhetoric and the extreme as the commonly held perspective, which is just a bit much to swallow.

To expand this notion further for you, these matters are not black and white if you are fully informed. For instance, if I'm nationality XYZ and I realize that my entire economy is based on trade with the country ZYX, and I am informed that my country has a huge trade surplus, why would I rant and rave about little trade disputes that are normal for any two nations?

The US economy is based on trade with everyone else, so we shouldn't rant about the people we trade with either then?

Helloooo China anyone? Russia? Old Europe? Helllooo.

In other words, there is nothing going on between the US and Canada to justify such words and actions, making them acts of emotion, not rational thought based on full information.

And we have senators calling for the invasion of Canada/. It seems we both have some common ground afterall! Could it be that few extremists are heard over the general populace? i wonder which sells more newspapers, the extreme, or the balanced view.

Instead, we should do what we believe is right and what is right for us, ie exactly what I posted in the very beginning.

I agree. We should also show the wisdom, and the courage, of listening, and working with our friends and allies to come to the best solution for all. Not just the solution that is best for ourselves.

As a nation, we seriously need to develop a world that we wish to live in when we are not the major power.

RobertDyck · 2003-04-21 14:33:27

Right, but you said we should be "grateful" about this alleged suicide mission, defending the US, etc. At the same time we are talking about Canada's unilateral disarmament and the US defending both countries to the benefit of both.

On one hand Canada does not believe the military should be as large as the U.S. thinks we should have. We have peace keeping forces, we have contributions to international alliances that are designed to complement forces contributed by our partners, and we put great effort into international diplomacy. One example of a complementary military component is the Canadian frigate: designed to detect any submarine parked in Canadian coastal waters and if necessary take it out. No Typhoon class nuclear missile submarine could attack U.S. soil from Canadian waters; the Canadian frigate would detect it and give it the choice of leave or sink. The helicopter carried by the frigate can airdrop a torpedo when the frigate itself is outside torpedo range from the submarine.

On the other hand the U.S. does not want Canada to have a best-in-the-world military system. Why would Canada want to spend more on military than it does if our major ally does not want us to have a spectacular centre piece?

Echus_Chasma · 2003-04-21 16:05:03

Tim, your the type of person who gives the US a bad name.

Are you saying that this was not also defending Canada at the same time? Somehow it was only defending the US and not Canada? I find that hard to believe. With the elimination of the US, even if Canada received no nukes on her soil, she would be ruined from fallout and collapsed economy (not to mention all the refugees from down south).
Somehow I suspect that defense of north america is in BOTH our interests.

Canada might be protecting America with its military but as a consiquence, (excuse my spelling,) They get some of that protection for themselves. Are you faulting them for wanting to protect themselves and you?

You insult Canada because there are people their that burn American flags. From the sounds of things, America has pissed Canada around quite a bit. Maybe if America was a bit kinder to Canada there wouldn't be that flag burning.

What about Australia or England?
They have been burning American flags and insulting America, you seem to be ignoring that because their governments support America in pretty much everything. Hell, most countries in the world have been burning American flags.

I think that burning other countries flags is wrong, and I like America, but your arguement is quite stupid so I'll argue against you. Damn, I'm not even sure if your arguement has a point to it, cos I sure as hell can't find one.

tim_perdue · 2003-04-21 17:32:32

Maybe if America was a bit kinder to Canada there wouldn't be that flag burning.

Did you even read the thread?

Damn, I'm not even sure if your arguement has a point to it, cos I sure as hell can't find one.

Your style of emotional reaction, rather than reasoned responses, was exactly my point.

password · 2003-04-21 18:39:14

Maybe if America was a bit kinder to Canada there wouldn't be that flag burning.

Someone has to have a sense of humour, posting that after this entire thread...

dicktice · 2003-04-21 18:52:53

Gentlemen, gentlemen ... I've been away over the 4-day holidays, so haven't been following the above rantings (my term for it). I spent the last hour reading all four pages of it, and (not trying to be cute, I assure you): With friends like these within the Mars Society, who needs enemies? Both Canada and the United States are geat in the long term ... we poor saps can't help it if our respective governments tend to be crappy in the short term. Now ... how do we convince ours and the other launch capable nations, without recourse to Russia and/or China, to permit such as us to reach LEO and back routinely and economically in our own way ... ditto, Mars...?

Palomar · 2003-04-21 21:11:09

Gentlemen, gentlemen ... I've been away over the 4-day holidays, so haven't been following the above rantings (my term for it). I spent the last hour reading all four pages of it, and (not trying to be cute, I assure you): With friends like these within the Mars Society, who needs enemies?

*Most of the people posting here -aren't- members of the Mars Society, dicktice. I just thought I'd point that fact out.

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2003-04-22 00:09:41

Ok, we've all had our little rant. This was actually milder than some discussions we had on the old message board. That is why I was reluctant to join this one when it was first formed. I had been trying to stick to technical stuff rather than political due to arguements like this. Can we agree that we need to pull together to get to Mars? Can we also agree that life on Mars must not be homogenous, that it must include many different points of view and many different social and economic systems?

tim_perdue · 2003-04-22 08:55:13

Can we agree that we need to pull together to get to Mars

How about this? Canada cuts a check for US$50 billion/year (the amount of the trade surplus with the US) and sends it to NASA to fund mars exploration? The current NASA budget is $15 bln, so the extra $50 bln will be quite an amazing injection of cash.

clark · 2003-04-22 09:00:39

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=11331

Canadian Space Agency creates business opportunities for Canadian space industries

The Canadian Space Agency allocates 80% of its budget to seek out opportunities for Canadian space industries.

Looks like Canada does a better job of privatizing space than America.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-04-21 11:17:45

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#27 2003-04-21 11:31:05

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#28 2003-04-21 11:55:26

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#29 2003-04-21 11:56:50

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#30 2003-04-21 12:16:13

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#31 2003-04-21 12:26:20

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#32 2003-04-21 12:47:00

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#33 2003-04-21 13:04:47

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#34 2003-04-21 13:12:13

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#35 2003-04-21 13:16:46

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#36 2003-04-21 13:37:20

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#37 2003-04-21 13:51:34

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#38 2003-04-21 14:07:52

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#39 2003-04-21 14:09:56

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#40 2003-04-21 14:16:21

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#41 2003-04-21 14:21:01

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#42 2003-04-21 14:33:27

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#43 2003-04-21 16:05:03

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#44 2003-04-21 17:32:32

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#45 2003-04-21 18:39:14

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#46 2003-04-21 18:52:53

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#47 2003-04-21 21:11:09

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#48 2003-04-22 00:09:41

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#49 2003-04-22 08:55:13

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#50 2003-04-22 09:00:39

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

Board footer